Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 28 of 28

Thread: Did US really devote only 15% of war effort to Pacific War?

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    604

    Default Re: Did US really devote only 15% of war effort to Pacific War?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ardee View Post
    In any case, as many as about 6,000 US Marines served in the ETO. I'd call that more than "few to none," though you're free to argue about their significance as a percentage of all those serving. The article below mentions things like Operation Torch, Normandy etc. While I didn't see it in my quick scan of the article, I believe Marines were also involved at Anzio. Several more places are mentioned as well. It also gives an idea of the size of shipboard detachments.
    http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/USMCETO.html
    OK, let's say "few" as opposed to "none" and let's also agree that no Marine Divisions were used in the ETO. If you can find one, let me know.

    In terms of "ships", RS is correct that the army ended up with more of them than the Navy. Since there were only 6 Marine (Navy) Divisions and about 21 Army Divisions, the Army wanted to conrol its own shipping in support of their troops. It might be a different story if one loks at overall tonnages, however, because LCTs and other such craft really don't weigh anything compared to aircaft carriers, cruisers and battlships, but I have not seen an analysis of that. Of course submarines are "ships" .

    When considering the 15% figure, remember that there were about 70 US army divisions operating oin Europe with all of their support personnel. A strict definition of terms would be needed as to "resources", "expenditures" and "budgeted vs actual". Throwing in Lend Lease puts a new spin on it that I hadn't thought about before.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    287

    Default Re: Did US really devote only 15% of war effort to Pacific War?

    Quote Originally Posted by royal744 View Post
    OK, let's say "few" as opposed to "none" and let's also agree that no Marine Divisions were used in the ETO. If you can find one, let me know..
    Agreed. But if you look, *I* never said anything about USMC Divisions.
    "...we have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo (Walt Kelly)

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    604

    Default Re: Did US really devote only 15% of war effort to Pacific War?

    I mentioned in an earlier post that I had a book filled with statistics on the Pacific Theatre of Operations. In the wilderness of facts and figures it was maddeningly difficult to tease out any hard and fast numbers of comparative percentages. There was mention of a rough "30 percent" figure without any basis on which to make a comparison. If I find anything better, I'll let you know. Like RS, I had read the 15% figure before and mentioned it in threads.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    6

    Default Re: Did US really devote only 15% of war effort to Pacific War?

    Not an expert but I think the 15% figure is absurdly low. Just look at the US fleet. All the fleet carriers, not to mention the jeep carriers, battlewagons. And all the troops.

    Heck, just Okinawa: "U.S. manpower losses amounted to over 82,000 casualties, including non-battle casualties (psychiatric, injuries, illnesses) of whom over 12,500 were killed or missing. Battle deaths were 4,907 Navy, 4,675 Army, and 2,938 Marine Corps personnel"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Md USA
    Posts
    33

    Default Re: Did US really devote only 15% of war effort to Pacific War?

    Quote Originally Posted by royal744 View Post
    I've seen the same figure many times. I have a book somewhere on the PTO that has facts and figures in it but don't know where it is at the moment. Howver, thr largest single invasion of the Pacific War took place at Okinawa. It took a total of 2,000 ships of all types and included about 13 carriers. The largest amphibious operation of the European war at Normandy, used 4,000 ships of all types.

    Actually there was 40 carriers at Okinawa when you include the escort carriers and 18 battleships with atleast 200 destroyer and destroyer escorts. It was more warships at Okinawa as Normandy only used 7 total Battleships and a little over 100 destroyers. Also Okinawa I believe landed more troops then Normandy as it was about 180,000 troops put ashore at Okinawa. Ron

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Md USA
    Posts
    33

    Default Re: Did US really devote only 15% of war effort to Pacific War?

    I do have a few figures to give that I know of. The US army had just over 5 million troops oversea's with about 3.5 million in Europe and 1.5 million in the Pacific. All 6 US marine divisions fought in the Pacific which was about 350,000 in the pacific including the marine aviation units. In terms of divisions the US army had 68 divisions in Europe and 21 in the pacific plus the 6 marine divisions. In planes the US army air force had almost 15,000 combat aircraft in Europe. In the Pacific it was over 21,000 combat aircraft which was 7,000 army air force planes and over 14,000 navy and marine planes.

    The US had about 100 carriers at wars end and I believe over 60 of them were in the pacific. The US had over 400 destoryers at wars end and 296 were in the pacific. For most of the war of the 23 US battleships only 3 were in Europe with the rest in the pacific. I know at wars end the US had 7.6 million troops oversea's. Just over 5 million were army troops which left about 2.6 million naval troops which included the 350,000 marines. I dont know the figure of how many naval troops were where but I would bet of the 2.6 million around 2 million were most likely in the pacific.

    I would say they had more then 15% in the pacific. Just in army divisions they had more then 15% in the pacific. Ron

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,278

    Default Re: Did US really devote only 15% of war effort to Pacific War?

    Quote Originally Posted by 383man View Post
    The US had about 100 carriers at wars end and I believe over 60 of them were in the pacific. The US had over 400 destoryers at wars end and 296 were in the pacific. For most of the war of the 23 US battleships only 3 were in Europe with the rest in the pacific.
    Thanks for those figures.

    At the risk of stating the obvious, they're a consequence of the Pacific War being fought over vast expanses of ocean where in Europe, at least as far as US air and land assaults from Britain were concerned, Britain was a massive air craft carrier conveniently anchored quite close to continental Europe. Less so in the Mediterranean, but still much less of a drain on resources than the Pacific War was on America, and Britain for that matter in the Indian Ocean, Burma and India during Britain's offensive phase later in the war. Also a consequence of logical division of responsibilities between the USN and RN.

    If we add the resources devoted to building and maintaining the US carriers, battleships and destroyers in the Pacific and add to that the massive effort in the fleet train required to supply those ships over huge distances, and the materiel produced to supply them, the US naval effort was well above 15% of America's naval effort. On your figures, at a wild guess it could be somewhere around or above 60 to 75% for the classes of ships you mention, which include the bulk of America's capital ships which would have put a much bigger drain on resources than, say, the same number of destroyers.

    As it was very much an amphibious landing war in the Pacific over several years versus only a few major amphibious landings in Europe, there would also be a correspondingly larger commitment of landing craft and associated transport and support in the Pacific than there was in Europe. Can't recall which ETO landing it was, maybe Italy, but I think there was a shortage of US landing craft because of the demands on landing craft in the Pacific.

    Add in the crucial factor of fuel required to run and supply the ships in the Pacific, which would have been a multiple of that required to cross the Atlantic and maintain convoy escorts etc and limited naval engagements, and it's possible that more fuel could have been used in the PTO than the ETO. Against that is fuel consumption by merchant shipping in the Atlantic, especially in the build up for D Day and convoys to the USSR.

    Your figures just add to the doubt about the oft recited 15% figure for the PTO.

    What's left out is the demand the US air war in the ETO put on US resources as there wasn't any comparable sustained large scale bombing campaign in the PTO.
    Last edited by Rising Sun*; 06-08-2015 at 07:04 AM.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Md USA
    Posts
    33

    Default Re: Did US really devote only 15% of war effort to Pacific War?

    I did find another figure to add in one of my books as it says on the day that D-day started there were 4,748 landing craft opperating in the channel and the Mediterranean and on that same date Nimitz and MaCarthur had 3,866 landing craft in the pacific. I would guess after D-day many in Europe went back to the pacific. Ron

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,278

    Default Re: Did US really devote only 15% of war effort to Pacific War?

    Quote Originally Posted by 383man View Post
    I did find another figure to add in one of my books as it says on the day that D-day started there were 4,748 landing craft opperating in the channel and the Mediterranean and on that same date Nimitz and MaCarthur had 3,866 landing craft in the pacific. I would guess after D-day many in Europe went back to the pacific. Ron
    We'd need a break down of the different types of landing craft in each theatre for a fair comparison but, on the raw figures and assuming it covers landing craft for all services, nearly 45% of US landing craft were still in the Pacific at the time of highest demand for landing craft in the ETO. That's three times the only 15% supposedly devoted to the PTO.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Md USA
    Posts
    33

    Default Re: Did US really devote only 15% of war effort to Pacific War?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    We'd need a break down of the different types of landing craft in each theatre for a fair comparison but, on the raw figures and assuming it covers landing craft for all services, nearly 45% of US landing craft were still in the Pacific at the time of highest demand for landing craft in the ETO. That's three times the only 15% supposedly devoted to the PTO.

    I wish it gave a breakdown but it did not give any breakdown. Ron

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    7

    Default Re: Did US really devote only 15% of war effort to Pacific War?

    The reason for this was due to at the moment the Navy had major control of the decisions made in the Pacific and the were leading and supplying the Marines with old U.S. Army weaponry which means the got all the old weaponry. Which the Navy paid cheap for and that made the need of bonds go down. Now another point is the islands they were attacking were small and did not need as much supplies as attacking Normandy. 3 the Pacific theater was mainly neglected by the American public.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,278

    Default Re: Did US really devote only 15% of war effort to Pacific War?

    Quote Originally Posted by historian_101airborne View Post
    The reason for this was due to at the moment the Navy had major control of the decisions made in the Pacific and the were leading and supplying the Marines with old U.S. Army weaponry which means the got all the old weaponry.
    No.

    For example, check out the history of landing craft built and deployed during WWII and the BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) in the USMC in the Pacific War.


    Quote Originally Posted by historian_101airborne View Post
    Now another point is the islands they were attacking were small and did not need as much supplies as attacking Normandy.
    No.

    The logistics in the Pacific war across thousands of miles of ocean were far more demanding than crossing a few miles of the English Channel.

    Quote Originally Posted by historian_101airborne View Post
    the Pacific theater was mainly neglected by the American public.
    No.

    A major problem for the American government from Pearl Harbor onwards was that the American public was focused on revenge against Japan. The Administration had to work hard to convince the American public that the nation should devote its war effort primarily against Germany.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    7

    Default Re: Did US really devote only 15% of war effort to Pacific War?

    I didn't say they had all controll over them 2 yes it was very very expensive but compared to the Europe campaign it was little smaller 3 the last one I have no excuse

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •